Local Government

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's actions in relation to blasting by the operators of a quarry in her area. She said that the council failed to ensure that a full and complete environmental impact assessment was carried out on the residential area beside the quarry, before they approved blasting at the quarry for 20 years. We did not find any deficiencies in the environmental assessment and the associated process. A specific assessment on the residential area was not required.

Ms C also said that the council failed to ensure that there were adequate planning conditions in relation to the blasting at the quarry. She complained that the council had unreasonably given the quarry operators permission to carry out test blasting at the quarry with inadequate safeguards for public safety and public amenity. The council had allowed the blasting under an earlier planning consent, as the more recent consent had not been implemented at that time. We found that the blasting operations were not excluded from the earlier consent. However, the council had an agreement with the quarry operators that the conditions in relation to blasting in the more recent planning application would apply. We considered that this was to be welcomed from a practical point of view, as it allowed a detailed monitoring scheme for the blasting to be drawn up.

We were also satisfied that the council had put reasonable safeguards in relation to the blasting in place. They had taken the relevant national planning advice into account and there was also a scheme for monitoring blasting vibration in place. We found that it was appropriate for a firm of environmental consultants to monitor the blasts. It was also common practice for the results of the monitoring to be kept at the site and made available for inspection by the planning authority at all reasonable times. In addition, there was a notification procedure in place to inform residents of the blasts. That said, we did comment to the council that they should consider occasionally monitoring the blasts themselves. We also found that the council had delayed in responding to complaints about the blasting and upheld Ms C's complaint about this delay.

Ms C made a further complaint that the council had obtained evidence that a condition regarding the quarry's hours of operation was being breached, but had failed to take enforcement action. The council said that it was their position that they had monitored the noise level at the quarry and no harm was being caused. They stated that the quarry operators had made an application to change the operating hours. They said that no enforcement action would, therefore, be considered until a decision was made on this application.

If a member of the public complains to us that there has been administrative fault or service failure by an authority in reaching a decision, and that he or she has suffered injustice or hardship because of this, we may look at the complaint. We can consider the process and procedures involved. We cannot, however, question the decision if there is no evidence of maladministration. We found that the council had followed the correct procedures in relation to this matter. We were also satisfied that it was appropriate for the council's enforcement officer to advise the quarry operators to make an application to vary the condition in relation to the operating hours.

However, at an early stage in our investigation, the council's chief executive had given assurances that the council would continue to monitor the operations at the quarry to ensure that there was no loading or unloading of lorries outwith the permitted hours. The council had failed to honour these assurances in view of their decision that no harm was being caused and enforcement action would not be taken.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• write to the Ombudsman and Ms C to explain why they failed to honour the assurances given that they would continue to monitor the operations at the quarry to ensure that there was no loading or unloading of lorries outwith the permitted hours.

Summary

Mr C complained about information provided to him about planning permission in 2000 and 2007/8, lack of information sharing between the planning and building control departments, and the handling of his enquiries about these matters in 2010.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a planning adviser, found that the information provided by the planning and building control departments had been accurate and complete and was not misleading. It had been made clear to Mr C and the architect who had acted as his agent that the grant of planning permission did not negate the need to apply for a building warrant and vice versa. We also found that the level of information sharing and co-operation between the two departments was similar to that in most if not all councils in Scotland. This also complied with the guidance offered by the Scottish Government via the Building Standards Division - Procedural Handbook. We did not uphold these complaints.

We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about delay. We found that there were delays in dealing with his queries when he came to sell his property in 2009-10. Mr C had to apply for a letter of comfort (a letter that confirms that any work done on a property without planning permission and/or a building warrant has been done to an acceptable standard). The council admitted that due to staffing difficulties in 2010 there were unacceptable delays in the processing and issuing such letters. They apologised to Mr C for this in their response to his complaint in January 2012, and took action to ensure that the situation was not repeated. They are also currently reviewing their systems in preparation for the implementation of the Building Standards Framework developed by the Scottish Government and due to be implemented in October 2012.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with an update on the preparation for and implementation of the Building Standards Framework.

Summary

Mr C complained that following a water leak in his property, the council treated the water mark and then painted the whole area with a magnolia anti-mould paint. He was unhappy because the hall had previously been painted white, not magnolia.

The council had told him that rather than simply treat the affected patch with the anti-mould paint, the tradesman had painted the whole hall. While the colour was not his preference they believed that the decision to use the anti-mould paint was the correct one and that all reasonable steps had been taken to leave his home looking as good as possible. They confirmed that the anti-mould paint was only available to them in magnolia and did not think that further expenditure could be justified.

During our consideration of Mr C's complaint we found that the hall had been repainted in white but that he remained dissatisfied with the workmanship, and that the paint used was matt while he wanted a silk finish. We found that the council had acted reasonably and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A is the owner-occupier of a detached house in a modern housing estate. His rear boundary adjoins part of an avenue of trees, for which the council are responsible. Mr A considered that the trees detracted from his amenity and had over a number of years asked the council to remove the trees closest to his garden. The council had resisted this course of action as they did not consider the trees were diseased or dangerous.

Mr A said that the council's inspection of the trees had been cursory and inadequate; that they had not given proper regard to his evidence that the trees were in poor condition; had failed to provide assistance to him to remove leaves and debris falling into his garden; had failed to accept that his amenity had been detrimentally affected; and had acted prejudicially to him by not taking action on the basis that other might complain.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's five complaints, as we did not find any evidence that the council had acted improperly. However, as the council policy to which they referred was not publicised, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended the council:

• make available on its website a general statement of their current practice with regard to their responsibilities for trees in their area and the limited circumstances where they will intervene to manage or remove trees.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the council's decision to allow their contractors to use an area of grass at the end of his street for storage of materials which related to the work they were carrying out. Mr C was dissatisfied that the site was regularly used by the council and complained that they did not consider other sites.

During our investigation the council explained why this site had been used and that other sites had been considered but had been unsuitable. The council also provided evidence that they had addressed the issue of health and safety during contacting and while the work was going on and had taken reasonable action to address any issues raised while the site was being used by the contractor. The council had also provided evidence of the action they had taken action to ensure that the site was secure. We found no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the issues raised by Mr C.

Summary

Mr C is a resident of one of nearly 1500 sheltered housing units under council management. He was unhappy with the actions of the council and their agents during a consultation process for a review of sheltered housing provision. He said that the council unreasonably: convened the original consultation meetings in a limited number of centres, to which residents had to travel by bus; failed to engage a suitably qualified company to undertake a programme of research into sheltered housing provision; failed to tell family members about the consultation and the meetings arranged by the council; failed to invite relevant local councillors to the meetings; failed to make adequate arrangements in the meetings with sheltered housing residents; ignored the views of the majority of the residents; and refused to make tape recordings of the meetings available as promised.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that: the original meetings were not for the purpose of obtaining all tenants' views, which were individually canvassed by questionnaire; the performance of the agents was essentially a contractual matter; it would have been unreasonable to have expected the council to widen the consultation to residents' families or to invite councillors. We also found that the council accepted that arrangements for meetings at individual complexes were not ideal, but that their decision had considered this and balanced it with the convenience of holding such meetings. There had been opposition to the changes from residents but this had been referred to and not ignored in the reporting of the consultation. We did not find that there had been a promise to tape meetings to play to those unable to attend.

Summary

Mr C is a council tenant. He complained about an invoice that the council sent him in respect of a repair to an outside tap. He said that the tap was damaged by the council’s contractors when doing modernisation work to his house, and he had reported the damage several times via the council’s online complaints service but they had failed to respond. The tap then fell off when his son brushed against it and he contacted the council for assistance when he could not turn the water off. As the tap had originally been damaged by the contractors, however, he considered it unreasonable that the council sent him the bill for this repair.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. During our investigation we found no evidence that he had reported the damage any earlier. We also listened to a recording of a telephone conversation, in which he reported that his son had damaged the tap and agreed to pay the bill.

Summary

Mr C is a former council tenant of a downstairs 'four in a block' flat. A tree in his front garden had grown to eaves (roof) level and his upstairs neighbour (an owner-occupier) complained to the council that this meant she was being denied both light and a view. The council offered to prune the tree but Mr C said he would prune it. That did not happen and, according to Mr C, workers arrived in March 2011 saying that they had a works order to remove the tree at Mr C's request. When he said that he had not requested the tree's removal, they left, contacted the police and requested their attendance. Mr C prevented the removal of the tree that day, and next day applied to buy his home. A year later, he instructed a contractor to trim the tree but the upstairs neighbour was not fully satisfied.

Mr C made four complaints against the council. We upheld his complaints that the council raised contradictory and inaccurate works orders in respect of the tree and that workers arrived unannounced to carry out the works. We found that the council had not acted properly in these respects. We did not, however, make any recommendations as the council had already apologised and amended their procedures in response to the complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints that an inaccurate report was made to the police to secure their attendance and that the council failed to deal appropriately with his complaint, as we found no evidence to suggest that the council acted inappropriately on either matter.

Summary

Mrs C told us that following the early birth of her baby, who has disabilities, she was supported by a social worker who provided a range of helpful information and advice. Mrs C said that the social worker told her that costs for travel to work, meals and childcare could be deducted from her earnings when calculating the upper earnings threshold for carer's allowance. Mrs C made a claim for carer's allowance when she started working. Some six years later her claim was reviewed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Mrs C was told that she was not entitled to deduct expenses for meals and travel to work from her earnings and that she had earned more than she was entitled to while claiming carer's allowance. Mrs C was told that she had to pay back £14,888 in overpaid carer's allowance.

Mrs C complained that the council had provided incorrect advice. The council said that they were not providers of expert advice in relation to DWP benefit claims. They said that they provided support, in good faith, to help people navigate their way through systems which could be complex. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, as the records held by the council confirmed that advice and support, including advice in respect of benefit entitlement, had been provided but there was no evidence that specific and incorrect advice about earnings disregards had been given. As there was no evidence to show whether the council had provided incorrect advice we could not substantiate the complaint. We did, however, make a recommendation to try to make the council's responsibilities clearer to clients in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue written guidance to staff working directly with members of the public, particularly where there is a degree of dependence or vulnerability, to clarify what kinds of advice can legitimately be given by council staff and when clients should be signposted for specific and detailed advice from professional experts in welfare benefits.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live in a house on a coastal strip below a site that contains two plots which received planning consent in 2005 (after a successful appeal to Scottish Ministers). A subsequent application was made in 2010 for full planning permission for an amended design on these plots. As part of the 2010 application the applicant provided an overlay comparing the earlier consent with the 2010 proposal.

Due to an error by the applicant's agent, first noted by a senior planning officer the day before a site visit, the case officer's report referred to the 2010 application as being at a lower height than the 2005 approval, although the finished floor levels were in fact about the same. The senior planning officer had requested an amended overlay from the developer, and this had been available to the planning committee the next day when they visited the site before deciding on the 2010 application. Mr and Mrs C made three complaints, two of which we upheld. We found that, had the error been uncovered earlier, then in the period leading up to the site visit an amended or supplementary report could have been provided (removing the references to the lower height of the 2010 proposals) and that a more appropriate methodology could have been used to demonstrate height levels at the site visit.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the defects identified in the way that they processed the 2010 application.